Legal Responsibilities in Risk Prevention in Homeowners Associations: What the Administrator Must Accredit

From the Obligation to Inform to Legal Responsibility

In the previous article we analyzed the obligation to inform in writing in occupational risk prevention matters and how the property administrator must be able to accredit conclusively such communications within the framework of Business Activity Coordination (CAE).

This second article addresses the other side, less visible but more critical: the legal responsibilities assumed by the homeowners association and its administrator when that obligation is not properly fulfilled or cannot be demonstrated before an inspection, an accident, or a judicial proceeding.

The General Duty of Protection

The basis of all preventive responsibility lies in the general duty of protection established by the Occupational Risk Prevention Law. The homeowners association, as owner of the workplace, and the administrator who represents it, must guarantee the safety and health of workers who carry out their activity in the building.

This duty is specified in several essential principles:

• Right to Effective Protection: Workers have the right to real and effective protection, not merely formal.
• Integration of Prevention: Prevention must be part of the ordinary management of the community, assessing risks and planning preventive measures.
• Cost of Measures: In no case can the cost of safety fall on workers or concurrent companies.

The lack of integration of prevention is not considered a minor administrative error, but a lack of legal diligence.

Responsibility According to the Role Assumed by the Community

The regulations distinguish different levels of responsibility depending on the role played by the homeowners association in each specific action:

In practice, the same community can assume several of these roles simultaneously, increasing its level of responsibility.

Communication and Information Obligations

Preventive communication is not an optional procedure. Non-compliance with this obligation is interpreted as a lack of diligence with legal consequences.

Among the most relevant obligations are:

• Reciprocal Information: Concurrent companies must inform each other of risks that may affect third parties before starting work.
• Owner’s Instructions: The administrator must issue clear instructions on existing risks and actions in case of emergency.
• Mandatory Written Support: When risks are serious or very serious, information must be provided in writing, without exceptions.
• Accident Notification: If an accident related to the concurrence of activities occurs, it must be immediately reported to the rest of the employers present.

The absence of documentary proof makes these obligations an especially vulnerable point before an inspection.

The Duty of Surveillance (art. 24.3 LPRL)

When the community acts as principal employer, the law imposes an additional duty: actively monitor compliance with preventive regulations by contractors.

This duty implies, at minimum:

• Requiring companies to accredit in writing their risk assessment and preventive planning.
• Verifying that external workers have received the necessary training and information.
• Checking that adequate coordination means exist between all concurrent companies.

Not performing these checks can lead to joint and several liability, even when the accident has been suffered by a worker from an external company.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

Non-compliance with preventive obligations not only generates physical risks, but legal consequences of great impact:

• Administrative Responsibility: Sanctions imposed by the Labor Inspection after requirements or infringement records.
• Civil Responsibility: Compensation for damages derived from accidents or occupational diseases.
• Criminal Responsibility: In cases of serious negligence that endanger the life or integrity of workers.
• Work Stoppage: The Inspection can order the immediate suspension of tasks in the face of a serious and imminent risk.

In many cases, these consequences are aggravated by the lack of documentary proof that action was taken correctly.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Can the Administrator Be Personally Responsible?

Yes. Although they act on behalf of the community, certain negligent conduct can lead to personal responsibilities, especially in the criminal or disciplinary sphere.

Is It Enough to Hire an External Prevention Service?

No. The EPS helps manage prevention, but does not exempt the community or the administrator from their obligations of information, coordination, and surveillance.

What Does the Labor Inspection Review Most?

The existence of preventive documentation, proof of written communication, and diligence in coordination with contractors.

Conclusion

In homeowners associations, occupational risk prevention is not a secondary technical matter, but a direct source of legal responsibility. The property administrator is in a key position: they coordinate, inform, and monitor, and must be able to demonstrate that they have done so correctly.

Knowing these responsibilities and equipping themselves with mechanisms that allow accrediting each action is not a matter of bureaucracy, but of real legal protection for the community and for the administrator themselves.